Proceedings VII World Avocado Congress 2011 (Actas VII Congreso Mundial del Aguacate 2011).

Cairns, Australia. 5 – 9 September 2011

Field evaluation of superior avocado rootstocks with ‘Hass’ as scions 1

Dr Danielle Le Lagadec
Agri-Science Queensland
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)

ABSTRACT
The Australian avocado industry favours the seedling rootstock ‘Velvick’ which is well adapted
to local conditions. New rootstocks have become available which warrant testing. This trial
tests the productivity of 22 seedling and 11 clonal rootstocks with ‘Hass’ as scion.

The trial was established in central Queensland in 2004 in good soil under low Phytophthora
pressure. Clonal and seedling ‘Velvick’ was used as the industry standard and clonal ‘Duke 7’
as the international standard rootstocks. Yield, vegetative vigour and tree health were
monitored from 2006 to 2010 and fruit quality was assessed from 2008 to 2010.

Seedling rootstocks BW2 and ‘Degania’ had the highest cumulative yields for 2006 to 2010,
357kg/tree and 343kg/tree respectively compared to ‘Velvick’, 315kg/tree. ‘Ashdot’ rootstock
3
produced noticeably smaller trees and had the highest yield efficiency (1.6kg/m ), followed by
3 3 3
BW2 (1.3kg/m ) and ‘Degania’ (1.2kg/m ), compared to ‘Velvick’ (0.8kg/m ). However, given
their small size and good yields, trees on ‘Ashdot’ showed tendencies for biennal bearing.

BC101 was the most precocious clonal rootstock and the highest producer for the first three
years. BC62 had the highest cumulative yield, 350kg/tree, compared to clonal ‘Velvick’,
290kg/tree. ‘Duke 7’ and BC128 were amongst the poorest yielding rootstocks in the trial.
BC62 gave rise to vigorous trees and thus did not have the highest yield in relation to the tree
3
size. BC101 was the most productive tree in relative to its canopy size, 0.85kg/m compared
3
to clonal ‘Velvick’, 0.75kg/m .

Under these trial conditions, several rootstocks appear to be superior to the industry standard
‘Velvick’.

La industria australiana de aguacate favorece el portainjerto de semilla ‘Velvick’ el cual se

adapta muy bien a las condiciones locales. Nuevos portainjertos ahora están disponibles y
necesitan ser probados. Este estudio examina la productividad de 22 portainjertos de
semillas y 11 portainjertos clonales con ‘Hass’ como la púa.

La prueba se estableció en Central Queensland en el 2004 en buena tierra con poca presión
de Phytophthora cinnamomi. Se usaron los portainjertos de semillas y clonales ‘Velvick’
como patrón estándar de la industria y ‘Duke 7’ como patrón estándar internacional. Se
controlaron el rendimiento, el vigor vegetal y la sanidad de los árboles desde el 2006 hasta el
2010 y se valoró la calidad de las frutas desde el 2008 hasta el 2010.

Los portainjertos de semillas ‘BW2’ y ‘Degania’ tuvieron el rendimiento cumulativo más alto
desde el 2006 hasta el 2010, 357 kg/árbol y 343 kg/árbol respectivamente comparado con
‘Velvick’, 315 kg/árbol. El portainjerto ‘Ashdot’ produjo árboles notablemente más pequeños
3
y también tuvieron la más alta eficiencia de rendimiento (1.6 kg/m ), seguido por ‘BW2’ (1.3
3 3 3
kg/m ) y ‘Degania’ (1.2 kg/m ), comparado con ‘Velvick’ (0.8 kg/m ). Sin embargo, debido a
los pequeños tamaños y los buenos rendimientos, los árboles de portainjertos ‘Ashdot’
mostraron las tendencias de aňerismo.

‘BC101’ fue el más precoz de los portainjertos clonales y fue el más alto productor durante
los primeros tres años. ‘BC62’ tuvo el rendimiento más alto cumulativo, 350 kg/árbol,
comparado con el clon ‘Velvick’, 290 kg/árbol. ‘Duke 7’ y ‘BC128’ fueron entre los
portainjertos con los rendimientos más bajos de la prueba. ‘BC62’ produjo árboles vigorosos
y por eso no tuvo el rendimiento más alto en relación con el tamaño de los árboles. ‘BC101’

1
Funded by Agri-Science Queensland, Birdwood Nursery, Simpson Farms Pty Ltd and Horticulture
Australia Ltd

1
 3
clonal fue el árbol más productivo en relación con su tamaño de canopia, 0.85 kg/m
3
comparado con ‘Velvick’ clonal, 0.75 kg/m .

Sobre las condiciones de esta prueba, unos portainjertos parecen ser superiores al estándar
de la industria ‘Velvick’.

INTRODUCTION

The Australian avocado industry comprises 1100 growers and produces 49,500 tonnes of
avocados annually worth $AUD180 million at farm gate and $430 million at retail level (Allen
2011) (http://industry.avocado.org.au/NewsItem.aspx?NewsId=69). The cost of producing
avocados in Australia is increasing steadily driven largely by high labour costs and increasing
labour shortages (McKenzie 2010; O'Brien 2005). In order to remain competitive in both
national and international markets production costs have to be kept in check. One of the
most effective and sustainable ways of achieving this is by increasing productivity through
rootstock and scion selection (Arpaia, Bender & Witney 1993).

Rootstocks have a significant influence on avocado yields, tree health, vigour and disease
susceptibility (Ben-Ya'acov, A., Michelson & Sela 1995; Bijzet & Sippel 2001; Wolstenholme
2003). The Australian avocado industry has an existing rootstock breeding and evaluation
program (McCarthy 2001) but since its establishment several new imported and locally
selected rootstocks have become available and warrant testing. A rootstock evaluation trial
was established in May 2004 by private investors to ascertain the efficiency of 33 new
rootstocks that had not been included in the national rootstock program. While many avocado
rootstock evaluation programs have focused on Phytophthora (root rot) tolerance the trial was
established in a low Phytophthora pressure orchard and focussed predominately on yield
productivity.

The Australian avocado industry is based largely on seedling ‘Velvick’ rootstock which was
locally selected and is well adapted to the Australian growing conditions (Newett, Crane &
Balerdi 2002). Several avocado growing countries have accepted the benefits of clonal
rootstocks and are favouring clonals above seedling material (Mickelbart et al. 2007; Roe,
Kremer-Kohne & Kohne 1995). The advantage of established clonal rootstocks has yet to be
proven under Australian growing conditions and for this reason both clonal and seedling
material was included in the trial.

METHOD

o
A rootstock trial was established in May 2004 in Childers, central Queensland (25 14’S
o
152 16’E, altitude 115m) on good, deep red soil with a soil pH of approximately 6.3 and low
Phytophthora pressure. The trial consisted of 22 seedling and 11 clonal rootstocks with
‘Hass’ as scion (Table 1). Tree spacing was 11m X 5m and the orchard was under standard
commercial managed according to the grower’s orchard practices.

2
Table 1. Clonal and seedling rootstocks included in the trial with ‘Hass’ as the scions. The
country of origin is given in parentheses

Seedling rootstocks Clonal rootstocks

1
‘Ashdot’ (Israel) BM1 (RSA)
1
‘Degania’ (Israel) BM2 (RSA)
2
‘Reed’ (USA) ‘Duke 7’ (USA)
‘Zutano’ (USA) BC101 (Aus)
BW127 (Aus) BC128 (Aus)
BW128 (Aus) BC16 (Aus)
BW140 (Aus) BC19 (Aus)
BW16 (Aus) BC197 (Aus)
BW181 (Aus) BC62 (Aus)
BW19 (Aus) BC7 (Aus)
3
BW197 (Aus) ‘Velvick’ (Aus)
BW2 (Aus)
BW5 (Aus)
BW6 (Aus)
BW62 (Aus)
BW68 (Aus)
BW7 (Aus)
BW70 (Aus)
BW78 (Aus)
BW80 (Aus)
BW93 (Aus)
3
‘Velvick’ (Aus)
1
West Indian origin; 2Mexican origin; 3Guatemalan origin; all the others are believed to be West Indian
x Guatemalan hybrids

The trial extended over four hectares. For each rootstock there were five randomized
replicated plots, each plot consisting of three data trees with guard trees between the plots.
Clonal and seedling ‘Velvick’ was used as the Australian industry standard and clonal ‘Duke
7’ as the international standard. The ‘BW-’ and ‘BC-’ rootstocks are Birdwood Nursery
selections and believe to be of Guatemalan x West Indian origin.

Vegetative vigour, tree health and yield was monitored from 2006 to 2010. Yield was
3
expressed in kg per tree and as yield efficiency i.e. kg of fruit produced per m of canopy
volume, assuming an elongated spheroid shaped tree, V=¾πab , where V is canopy volume,
2

a is the radius of the canopy height and b is the radius of the canopy width (Arpaia, Bender &
Witney 1993; Mickelbart et al. 2007).

Fruit quality was assessed from 2008 to 2010 for all rootstocks. Fruit were assessed
according to the Avocare Quality Assessment Manual (White et al. 2001) at eat ripe after
being cold stored under domestic market commercial simulation conditions (Hofman et al.
2001). Fruit with internal defects extending over more than 10% of the flesh were deemed
unmarketable.

The data from the clonal and seedling rootstocks was analysed separately. One way analysis
of variance at 95% confidence level, linear regression analyses, and simple correlations were
th
carried out using GenStat 11 Edition. Where necessary, data was log transformed in order to
normalize it.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Vegetative vigour and tree health

In general, the clonal rootstock trees took approximately 12-18 months longer to establish
than the seedling trees. By the second harvest, 2007, the clonal trees had grown well and
were only slightly smaller than their seedling counterparts. The tree canopy volume for the
various rootstocks is shown in Figure 1. The 2010 canopy volume was not included in the

3
figure since the orchard was pruned at the end of the 2009 fruiting season. As could be
expected, variation in canopy volume was more noticeable in the seedling rootstock trees
than in the clonal trees (Fig. 1). Variability in physical and physiological characteristics of
seedling rootstocks is well documented (Ben-Ya'acov, A 1976; Ben-Ya'acov, A., Michelson &
Sela 1993, 1995; Whiley et al. 2007).

Seedling rootstock ‘Ashdot’ produced the smallest trees with 12 of the 15 ‘Hass’ on ‘Ashdot’
trees appeared to be distinctly dwarfing. As a result of their very small size, these 12 trees
seemed to be susceptible to environmental stresses and were the only trees in the trial that
showed signs of stress after bearing a relatively heavy crop in 2008 and 2009. All the other
trees remained healthy throughout the trial. None of the trees displayed any symptoms of root
rot which was not surprising given the orchard’s age, excellent management, reasonably dry
seasons from 2004 to 2010 and the low Phytophthora pressure in the orchard.

140

120
Canopy Volume (m3)

100

80

60

40

20

0
Degania

Reed
BW5
BW16
BW128

BW127
BW181
BW80

BW140
BW6

BW7
BW78
BW2
BW19
BW70
BW62
BW93
Zutano
BW197
BW68
Velvick

Ashdot
a 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 1. Progressive growth in

canopy volume from 2006 to 2009
for ‘Hass’ on (a) seedling and (b)
140 clonal rootstocks. Bars above the
120 columns represent the standard error
Canopy Volume (m3)

100 of the mean for the 2009 data.

80
60
40
20
0
Duke 7
BC62

BC16
BC101

BC197

BC19

BM1

BM2

BC7

BC128
Velvick

b 2006 2007 2008 2009

4
Crop yield
The first crop was harvested in 2006 with seedling rootstocks producing significantly larger
crop loads (group average: 13.7kg / tree) than the clonal trees (group average: 3.7kg / tree,
Tables 2 and 3). BW2, believed to be a seedling of ‘Velvick’ was found to be a precocious
rootstock and produced the highest cumulative yield for 2006 to 2010. BW2 produced 13%
more fruit over the five year observation period than the industry standard rootstock ‘Velvick’.
The Israeli seedling rootstock ‘Degania’ was also found to be a good precocious bearer with a
cumulative yield almost 10% higher than seedling ‘Velvick’. ‘Ashdot’ despite being almost half
the size of the trees on ‘Velvick’ produced a cumulative yield only 6% less than that of
‘Velvick’. ‘Hass’ on ‘Reed’ and ‘Zutano’ rootstocks had the lowest yields throughout the
monitoring period despite producing reasonably sized trees.

Table 2. Average yield (kg) per tree for seedling rootstocks with ‘Hass’ as scion

Average yield per tree (kg)

Rootstock 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cumulative
BW2 20.6 48.7 104.0 57.9 125.8 357.0
‘Degania’ 18.8 45.3 91.7 64.2 123.4 343.3
BW70 17.5 36.0 87.6 66.8 117.5 325.4
BW80 10.0 28.8 105.0 56.4 124.5 324.7
BW19 17.4 38.5 85.1 58.4 124.8 324.3
BW78 12.0 34.9 93.3 74.7 100.9 315.8
‘Velvick’ 13.6 32.6 86.0 53.7 129.3 315.1
BW181 13.7 39.5 78.5 66.6 116.0 314.3
BW140 11.1 29.4 87.2 65.8 114.1 307.6
BW7 17.6 39.7 80.0 64.8 104.7 306.8
BW197 14.4 33.2 84.7 61.6 112.5 306.4
BW93 10.7 35.5 86.1 47.4 124.0 303.8
BW16 15.9 36.9 76.6 51.4 121.0 301.7
BW127 12.7 41.4 90.2 43.1 111.9 299.3
‘Ashdot’ 18.9 39.5 81.5 77.1 78.6 295.5
BW6 9.8 34.5 90.3 56.2 104.2 294.9
BW62 9.2 36.4 94.2 42.3 112.6 294.7
BW5 15.8 38.9 77.0 38.6 120.7 291.0
BW128 13.3 26.7 79.8 46.5 113.9 280.2
BW68 7.8 21.9 72.8 73.5 97.9 273.9
‘Zutano’ 15.3 21.3 60.8 58.2 102.5 258.2
‘Reed’ 6.1 18.6 65.9 50.5 103.8 244.9
Group Avg 13.7 34.5 84.5 58.0 112.9 303.6
P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.116 0.112 0.001
d.f. 21 21 21 21 21 21
v.r. 4.24 4.47 3.01 1.43 1.41 2.32

5
Table 3. Average yield (kg) per tree for clonal rootstocks with ‘Hass’ as scion

Average yield per tree (kg)

Rootstock 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Cumulative
BC62 4.0 33.6 110.6 63.1 139.0 350.3
BC101 8.1 34.0 88.9 50.5 122.5 304.1
BC19 4.0 25.9 85.7 40.0 147.9 303.5
‘Velvick’ 4.3 27.2 77.1 47.6 133.7 289.7
BM2 4.1 26.0 80.5 56.2 120.5 287.2
BC197 4.5 28.0 85.6 46.2 119.6 283.9
BC16 3.0 30.6 82.5 41.2 124.0 281.3
BM1 1.3 16.0 68.8 55.6 119.2 260.9
‘Duke7’ 4.0 21.2 59.7 52.1 102.5 239.6
BC7 1.9 21.5 66.9 54.9 92.7 237.9
BC128 1.0 14.9 51.9 23.3 98.2 189.4
Group Avg 3.7 25.4 78.0 48.3 120.0 275.3
P <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
d.f. 10 10 10 10 10 10
v.r. 7.18 4.58 9.61 5.22 4.08 8.68

Initially the clonal rootstocks produced lower ‘Hass’ yields than the seedling rootstocks but by
2010, BC62 had exceeded the production achieved by the seedling rootstocks. Clonal
rootstock BC62 produced the highest cumulative yield (350kg / tree) of all clonal rootstocks
tested, equating to 20% higher than clonal ‘Velvick’ (290kg / tree) and 45% higher than the
international standard clonal ‘Duke 7’ (240kg / tree). In general, the clonal rootstocks
produced lower yields than the seedling trees but this could be related to their smaller canopy
volumes. As a direct comparison, over the five year observation period seedling ‘Velvick’
produced 10% more fruit than its clonal counterpart.

Yield efficiency
Often large vigorous trees produce a good crop load but they may not be the most cost
effective producers, since they are often more expensive to manage. Therefore, yield was
expressed in terms of canopy volume, ‘yield efficiency’. Seedling rootstock BW2 produced
strong ‘Hass’ trees which were less vigorous than trees on the seedling ‘Velvick’ rootstock
3
(Figure 1). In the 2010 harvest BW2 produced 1.3kg of fruit per m of canopy volume which
3
was 53% more productive than the industry standard ‘Velvick’ (0.8kg/m ). The Israeli seedling
rootstock ‘Ashdot’ had the highest yield efficiency throughout the five year monitoring period
(Figure 2). ‘Hass’ on ‘Ashdot’ rootstock produced a moderate crop load but because of its
small tree size, had the highest yield efficiency. ‘Ashdot’ may be well suited for high density
planting but given its small tree size, may be susceptible to environmental and physiological
stresses.

Although BC62 was the highest bearing clonal rootstock, because of its large tree size it did
not have the highest yield efficiency (Figure 3). BC101 had the highest yield efficiency
followed by BC19. BC128 performed poorly throughout the trial.

6
 Avg yield per canopy volume (kg/m3) 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Reed
Degania
BW2

BW19

BW181
BW197
BW5
Zutano
BW7
BW70
BW140

BW78
BW93
BW16
BW127

BW62
BW68

BW80
BW128
BW6
Velvick
Ashdot

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

3
Figure 2. Average yield (kg) per canopy volume (m ) of ‘Hass’ on seedling rootstocks. Bars
above the column indicate the standard error of the mean for the cumulative yield (2006 to
2010).
Avg yield per canopy volume (kg/m3)

5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Duke 7
BC101

BC19

BC197

BC62

MB2

BC7

MB1

BC16

BC128
Velvick

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

3
Figure 3. Average yield (kg) per canopy volume (m ) of ‘Hass’ on clonal rootstocks. Bars
above the column indicate the standard error of the mean for the cumulative yield (2006 to
2010).

Fruit quality
Rootstocks can have a direct influence on fruit quality (Burdon et al. 2007; Dixon et al. 2007;
Marques, Hofman & Wearing 2003; Smith & Kohne 1992). However, in the present trial fruit
quality appeared to be more closely related to crop load than to specific rootstocks. In
general, trees that produced large crop loads tended to produce good quality fruit. However,
this could not be statistically proven. The fruit quality increased noticeably as the trees aged.
In 2008 approximately 70% of the ‘Hass’ fruit sampled from seedling rootstocks were of
marketable quality, 82% in 2009 and 97% in 2010.

7
CONCLUSION
Under the current trial conditions, BW2 appears to be potentially superior to the existing
Australian industry standard rootstock, seedling ‘Velvick’. BW2 is precocious but less
vigorous than ‘Velvick’ and produces a higher ‘Hass’ yield than ‘Velvick’. Although BW2 has
not been included in rootstock trials in other avocado growing regions, it has been
commercially grown in many regions and is proving highly successful. Seedling rootstock
‘Degania’ also has good potential as do clonal rootstocks BC62 and BC101. Seedling
rootstock ‘Ashdot’ appears to have dwarfing qualities and may be well suited for higher
density plantings on fertile soils. However, given its potential susceptible to environmental
and physiological stresses ‘Ashdot’ may require careful management.

The results presented here are from young trees that have not yet reached their production
potential. Some rootstocks may take longer than other to reach optimum production and it is
recommended that the monitoring of the trial continues until the trees reach maturity.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank our financial sponsors: Birdwood Nursery, Simpson Farms Pty Ltd, Agri-Science
Queensland and Horticulture Australia Limited. I thank Birdwood Nursery for initiating and
establishing the project and Simpson Farms for maintaining the trees and providing labour
and equipment for harvesting the trial. Rachael Langenbaker, Terry Campbell and Wayne
Rose are thanked for their technical support. And foremost, I give all glory to my God through
whom all things are possible.

REFERENCES

8
Allen, A 2011, Babies love Aussie avos, 17 May 2011, Avocado Australia Ltd, 17
May 2011, Web page.

Arpaia, ML, Bender, GS & Witney, GW 1993, 'Avocado clonal rootstock production
trial', California Avocado Society Yearbook, vol. 77, pp. 89-93.

Ben-Ya'acov, A 1976, 'Avocado rootstocks in use in Israel', California Avocado

Society Yearbook, vol. 59, pp. 66-8.

Ben-Ya'acov, A, Michelson, E & Sela, I 1993, 'Rootstock effect on avocado vigor and
productivity', Acta horticulturae, vol. 349, pp. 191-5.

—— 1995, 'Development and evaluation of clonal avocado rootstocks in Israel. IV.

Experiments with Ettinger cultivar at En-Hachoresh', Alon Hanotea, vol. 49, no. 2, pp.
54-60.

Bijzet, Z & Sippel, AD 2001, 'Rootstocks', in EA De Villiers (ed.), The cultivation of

avocado, Institute for Tropical & Subtropical Crops, Nelspruit, RSA, pp. 85-103.

Burdon, J, Lallu, N, Haynes, G, Francis, K, Boldingh, H, Pak, H, Elmlsy, T, Smith, D,

Dixon, J & Cutting, J 2007, 'Preliminary studies of physiological and morphological
indicators of potential quality in late season New Zealand 'Hass' avocados', paper
presented to Proceeding VI World Avocado Congress, Vina Dell Mar, Chile, 12-16
November 2007.

Dixon, J, Elmlsy, T, Fields, F, Greenwood, A, Smith, D, Pak, H & Cutting, J 2007,

'Effect of rootstock cultivar on ripe fruit quality', New Zealand Avocado Grower's
Association Annual Research Report, vol. 7, pp. 85-90.

Hofman, P, Ledger, S, Stubbings, B, Adkins, M, Cook, J & Barker, J 2001, 'Avocado

quality on the retail shelf: we all have a role to play', in Proceedings of the Australian
and New Zealand Avocado Conference, Bundaberg.

Marques, JR, Hofman, PJ & Wearing, AH 2003, 'Rootstocks influence 'Hass' avocado
fruit quality and fruit minerals', Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology,
vol. 78, pp. 673-9.

McCarthy, A 2001, 'Avocado culture in Western Australia', Agriculture Western

Australia, vol. Bulletin 4484.

McKenzie, D 2010, 'Labour shortage hits agriculture', Weekly Times vol. August 17,
2010.

Mickelbart, MV, Bendera, GS, Witney, GW, Adams, C & Arpaia, ML 2007, 'Effects
of clonal rootstocks on 'Hass' avocado yield components, alternate bearing, and
nutrition', Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 460-
6.

Newett, SDE, Crane, JH & Balerdi, CF 2002, 'Cultivars and rootstocks', in AW

Whiley, B Schaffer & BN Wolstenholme (eds), The avocado. Botany, production and
uses, CABI Publishing, Cambridge, USA, pp. 161-87.

9
S Australia 2005, Submission to the agriculture and food policy reference group, by
O'Brien, T.

Roe, DJ, Kremer-Kohne, S & Kohne, JS 1995, 'Local and imported avocado
rootstocks in South Africa', in 3rd World Avocado Congress, vol. 1995, pp. 132-9.

Smith, DB & Kohne, JS 1992, 'Production potential of 'Fuerte' on seedling rootstocks',

South African Avocado Growers' Association Yearbook, vol. 15, pp. 83-5.

Whiley, A, Giblin, FR, Pegg, K & Whiley, D 2007, 'Preliminary results from avocado
rootstock research in Australia', in 4th World Avocado Congress, Vina Del Mar,
Chile.

White, A, Woolf, A, Heffer, M, Cookson, S & Hofman, P 2001, AvoCare assessment

manual, The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of new Zealand Ltd,
Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Wolstenholme, BN 2003, 'Avocado rootstocks: what do we know; are we doing

enough research', South African Avocado Growers' Association Yearbook, vol. 26, pp.
106-12.

10